A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing
By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In
All Ages Of Christianity.

The eternal Sonship of Christ, or that he is the Son of God by eternal
generation, or that he was the Son of God before he was the son of Mary,even
from all eternity, which is denied by the Socinians, and others akin, to them, was known
by the saints under the Old Testament; by David (Ps. 2:7, 12); by Solomon (Prov.
8:22, 30), by the prophet Micah,chapter 2, verse 2. His Sonship was known
by Daniel,from whom it is probable Nebuchadnezzar had it (Dan.3:25),
from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he was born of
the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called so on that account. This
truth is written as with a sun-beam in the New Testament; but my design in what I am about
is, not to give the proof of this doctrine from the sacred scriptures, but to shew who
first set themselves against it, and who have continued the opposition to it, more or
less, to this time; and on the other hand, to shew that sound and orthodox Christians,
from the earliest times of Christianity to the present, have asserted and defended it. I
shall begin with,

I. The first century, in which the Evangelists and Apostles lived; what
their sentiments were concerning this doctrine, is abundantly manifest from their
writings. The persons in this age who opposed the divine and eternal Son-ship of Christ
were,

1st, Simon Magus,father of heresies, as he is justly
called; he first vented the notion afterwards imbibed by Sabellius, of one
person in the Godhead; to which he added this blasphemy, that he was that person that so
is. Before he professed himself a Christian he gave out that he was some great one;he afterwards said, he was the one God himself under different names, the Father in Samaria,the Son in Judea,and the holy Spirit in the rest of the nations of the
world;1 or as Austin2
expresses it, he said that he in mount Sinai gave the law to Moses for the
Jews, in the person of the father; and in the time of Tiberius, he seemingly appeared in
the person of the Son, and afterwards as the holy Ghost, came upon the apostles in tongues
of fire. And according to Jerom3 he not only said,
but wrote it; for it seems, according to him, he wrote some volumes, in which he said,
"I am the Word of God, that is, the Son of God." Menander his disciple
took the same characters and titles to himself his master did.4

2dly, Cerinthus is the next, who was contemporary with the
apostle John,of whom that well known story is told,5
that the apostle being about to go into a bath at Ephesus,and seeing Cerinthus
in it, said to those with him, "Let us flee from hence, lest the bath fall upon
us in which Cerinthus,the enemy of truth is:" he asserted that Christ
was, only a man, denying his deity,6 and in course his
divine and eternal Sonship; he denied that Jesus was born of a virgin, which seemed to him
impossible; and that he was the son of Joseph and Mary,as other men
are7 of their parents. Jerom says,8
at the request of the bishops of Asia, John the apostle wrote his gospel
against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially the tenets of the Ebionites,
then rising up, who asserted that Christ was not before Mary hence he was obliged
plainly to declare his divine generation; and it may be observed, that he is the only
sacred writer who in his gospel and epistles speaks of Christ as the begotten and only
begotten Son of God, at least speaks mostly of him as such.

3dly, Ebion.What his sentiment was concerning Christ,
may be learned from what has been just observed, about the apostle Johns writing
his gospel to refute it; and may be confirmed by what Eusebius9
says of him, that he held that Christ was a mere man, and born as other men are: and
though he makes mention of another sort of them, who did not deny that Christ was born of
a virgin, and of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless did not own that he existed before, being
God the Word and Wisdom. Hence Hilary calls10Photinus,
Ebion,because of the sameness of their principles, and Jerom11says. Photinus endeavoured to restore the heresy
of Ebion;now it is notorious that the notion of the Photinians was the same
with the Socinians now, who say, that Christ was not before Mary;and so Alexander
bishop of Alexandria12observes of Arius
and his followers, who denied the natural sonship and eternal generation of Christ,
that what they propagated were the heresy of Ebion and Artemas.

Besides the inspired writers, particularly the apostle John,who
wrote his gospel, as now observed, to confute the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus,and in vindication of the deity of Christ, and his divine and eternal generation,
there are very few writings if any in this century extant. There is an epistle ascribed to
Barnabas,contemporary with the apostle Paul,in which are
these words,13 having made mention of the brazen serpent as
a figure of Jesus, he adds, "what said Aliases again to Jesus the son of Nave,putting this name upon him, being a prophet, that only all the people might hear that
the Father hath made manifest all things concerning his Son Jesus in the son of Nave,
and he put this name upon him, when he sent him to spy the landbecause the Son of
God in the last days will cut up by the roots the house of Amalek:behold
again Jesus, not the son of man, but the Son of God,manifested in
the flesh by a type.Likewise David said the Lord said to my Lord.See
how David calls him Lord, and the Son of God:" by which it appears that he
believed that Christ was the Son of God before he was manifested in the flesh or became
incarnate; and that he was the Son of God according to the divine nature, as well as the
Son of David according to the human nature, which he also expresses in the same
paragraph. And elsewhere he says,14 "For this end
the Son of God came in the flesh,that the full sum might be made of the sins
of those who persecuted the prophets," so that according to him Christ was the Son of
God before he came in the flesh or was incarnate.

Clemens Romanus was bishop of Rome in this century, and
though the book of Recognitions,ascribed to him, are judged spurious, yet
there is an epistle of his to the Corinthians15 thought to
be genuine: in which, after speaking of Christ our Saviour, and the high priest of our
oblations, and the brightness of the magnificence of God, and of his haying a more
excellent name than the angels, observes, that the Lord thus says of his own Son, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;thereby declaring his belief,
that Christ is the proper Son of God, and begotten by him. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch
in this century, after the first bishop of that place Evodius,and was
early in it, if any truth in these reports that he was the child Christ took in his arms,
when he rebuked his disciples; and that he saw Christ after his resurrection; but though
these are things not to be depended on, yet it is certain that he lived in the latter end
of the first century, and suffered martyrdom in the beginning of the second. Several
epistles of his are extant, in which, as well as by words, he exhorted the saints to
beware of heresies then springing up among them, and abounding, as Eusebius observes;16 meaning the heresies of Ebion arid Cerinthus about the
person of Christ: and says many things which shew his belief, and what was their error. In
one of his epistles17 he exhorts to decline from some
persons, as beasts, as ravenous dogs, biting secretly, and difficult of cure; and adds,
"there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten. God made
flesh, in a true and immortal life, who is both of Mary and of God." In a
larger epistle to the same,18 thought by some to be
interpolated, though it expresses the same sentiment; "our physician is alone the
true God, the unbegotten and invisible Lord of all, the Father and begetter of the
only begotten one;we have also a physician, or Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son before the world,and the word, and at last man of the virgin Mary;"
and afterwards in the same19 epistle still more expressly,
"the Son of God, who was begotten before the world was, and constitutes all
things according to the will of the Father, he was bore in the womb by Mary,according
to the dispensation of God, of the seed of David by the Holy Ghost." And a
little farther,20 "be ye all in grace by name,
gathered together in one common faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ his only
begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature: according to the flesh indeed of the
family of David:ye being guided by the Comforter." A plain account, as
of the divine Sonship and Humanity of Christ, so of the doctrine of the Trinity. In
another epistle21 of his, he speaks of Jesus Christ,
"who was with the Father before the world was, and in the end appeared," that
is, in human nature in the end of the world; and exhorts all to "run to one temple of
God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and being in
him and returning to him." And a little lower he adds, "there is one God, who
hath manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal word." And father
on he says, "study to be established in the doctrines of the Lord, and of the
apostles, that whatsoever ye do may prosper, in flesh and spirit, in faith and love, in
the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit." A full confession of the Trinity, one
of the principal doctrines he would have them be established in. All which is more fully
expressed in the larger epistle22 to the same persons:
speaking of Christ, he says, "who was begotten by the Father before the world was;God the Word, the only begotten Son, and who remains to the end of the world, for
of his kingdom there is no end." Again, "there is one God omnipotent, who
hath manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word; not spoken, but
essential, not the voice of an articulate speech, but of a divine operation, begotten
substance, who in all things pleased him that sent him." And father on, "but ye
have a plerophory in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all worlds,afterwards
made of the virgin Mary without the conversation of men." And in the larger
epistle23 of his to other persons, he thus speaks of
some heretics of his time; "they profess an unknown God, they think Christ is
unbegotten, nor will they own that there is an holy Spirit: some of them say the Son is a
mere man, and that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, are the same:beware of
such, lest your souls be ensnared." And in an epistle to another people24 be says, "there is one unbegotten God the Father, and one
only begotten Son, God the Word and man, and one comforter the Spirit of truth." And
in an epistle25 ascribed unto him he has these words,
"there is one God and Father,there is also one Son, God the Wordand there
is one comforter, the Spirit;not three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three
Comforters, but one Father, and one Son, and one Comforter; therefore the Lord, when he
sent his apostles to teach all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the
Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;not in one of three names,
nor into three that are incarnate, but into three of equal honor and glory." Lucian,that scoffing, blasphemous heathen, lived in the times of Trajan,and
before, as Suidas says, wrote a dialogue26 in
derision of the Christian religion, particularly of the doctrine of the Trinity: which
dialogue, though it is a scoff at that doctrine, is a testimony of it, as held by the
Christians of that age; and among other things, he represents them as saying that Christ
is the eternal Son of the Father.I go on,

II. To the second century, in which the same heresies of Ebion and
Cerinthus were held and propagated by Carpocrates,the father of the Gnostics,27 by Valentinus and Theodotus the currier, whose
disciples were another Theodotus a silversmith, and Asclepiodotus and. Artemon
also, according to Eusebius.28

1st. Carpocrates was of Alexandria in Egypt,and
lived in the beginning of the second century: he and his followers held that Christ was
only a man, born of Joseph and Mary,of two parents, as other men,29 only he had a soul superior to others; which, having a strong
memory, could remember, and so could relate, what he had seen and had knowledge of, when
in the circumference (as they express it) and in conversation with his unknown and
unbegotten Father; and which was endowed with such powers, that he escaped the angels, the
makers of the world; and was so pure and holy, that he despised the Jews, among whom he
was brought up; and afterwards returned to his unknown Father; his soul only, not his
body.30 There seems to be something similar in this notion
of the human soul of Christ, to what is imbibed by some in our day.

2dly, Valentinus.He came to Rome when Hyginus was
bishop of that place, flourished under Pius,and lived till the time of Anicetus.31 He and his followers held, that God the creator sent forth his
own Son, but that he was animal, and that his body descended from heaven, and passed
through the virgin Mary,as water through a pipe; and therefore, as Tertullian,observes,32Valentinus used to say,
that Christ was born by a virgin, but not of a virgin. This is what divines
call the heretical elapse; which yet those disavow, who in our day are for the antiquity
of the human nature of Christ before the world was; though how he could be really and
actually man from eternity, and yet take flesh of the virgin in time, is not easy to
reconcile.

3dly. Artemon or Artemas who lived in the time of Victor
bishop of Rome.He held that Christ was a mere man33 and pretended that the apostles and all Christians from
their times to the times of Victor,held the same;34
than which nothing could be more notoriously false, as the writings as Justin,
Iren?s,&c shew: and it is said that by him, or by his followers,
the celebrated text in 1 John 5:7, was erased and left out in some copies.35

4thly, Theodotus the currier held the same notion he did, that
Christ was a mere man; for which he was excommunicated by Victor bishop of Rome:which shews the falsity of what Artemon said; for if Victor had been of
the same opinion, he would never have excommunicated Theodotus. Eusebius says,
this man was the father and broacher of this notion,36
before Artemon,that Christ was a mere man; and denied him to be God. Yea,
that he was not only a mere man, but born of the seed of man.37
Though Tertullian says, that he held that Christ was only a man, but equally
conceived and born of the holy Ghost and the virgin Mary, yet inferior to Melchizedec.38

The contrary to these notions was asserted and maintained by those
apostolical men, not only Ignatius,who lived in the latter end of the
preceding century, and the beginning of this, as has been observed, but by Polycarp,
Justin Martyr, Iren?s,and others.

1. Polycarp,bishop of Smyrna a disciple and
hearer of the apostle John,used to stop his ears when be heard the impious
speeches of the heretics of his time. This venerable martyr, who had served his master
Christ eighty six years, when at: the stake, and the fire just about to be kindled upon
him, witnessed a good confession of the blessed Trinity in his last moments, putting up
the following prayer; "O Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom
we have received the knowledge of thee; God of angels and of powers, and every
creatureI praise thee for all things; I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eternal
high priest Jesus Christ thy beloved Son, through whom, to thee with him in the holy
spirit, be glory, now and for ever, Amen."39

2. Justin,the philosopher and martyr, in his first
apology40 for the Christians, has these words;
"The Father of all, being unbegotten, has no namethe Son of him, who only is
properly called a Son, the Word, begotten and existing before the creatures (for at the
beginning by him he created and beautified all things) is called Christ." And in his
second apology he says, "We profess to be atheists with respect to such who are
thought to be Gods, but not to the true God and Father of righteousness, etc.; him, and
his Son who comes from him, and has taught us these things, and the prophetic Spirit, we
adore and worship." Afterwards he speaks of the logos,or word, the first
birth of God:" which, says he, we say is begotten without mixture." And
again "We speak that which is true, Jesus Christ alone is properly the Son begotten
by God, being his Word, and first-born, and power, and by his will became man; these
things he hath taught us." And in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, who is
represented as objecting to him, "What thou sayest that this Christ existed God
before the world, and then was born, and became man, does not only seem to be a paradox to
me, but quite foolish." To which Justin replies, "I know this seems a
paradox, especially to those of your nation,  but if I cannot demonstrate, that this
is the Christ of God, and that he pre-existed God, the Son of the maker of all things, and
became man by a virgin, in this only it would be just to say, that I am mistaken, but not
to deny that this is the Christ of God, though he may seem to be begotten a man of men,
and by choice made Christ, as asserted by some: for there are some of our religion who
profess him to be Christ, but affirm that he is begotten a man of men; to whom I do not
assent, nor many who are in the same mind with me." In which he plainly refers to the
heretics before mentioned, who thought that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary.And in another place, in the same dialogue, he says, "I will prove from scripture
that God first begat of himself before all creatures,a certain rational
power, which is called by the holy Spirit, the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son,
sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Angel, sometimes God, sometimes the Lord and the
Word." And then, after observing there is something similar in the Word begetting a
Word without any rejection or diminution, and fire kindling fire without lessening it, and
abiding the same; he proceeds to give his proof from the words of Solomon,Proverbs
8 where "the word of wisdom testifies, that he is the God who is begotten by
the Father of all, who is the word and wisdom and the power and the glory of him that generates."And then observes, that "this is the birth produced by the Father,which co-existed with the Father before all creatures,and with
whom the Father familiarly conversed, as the word by Solomon makes it manifest,
that he the beginning before all creatures is the birth begotten by God,which
by Solomon is called Wisdom." And in another place, in the same dialogue, on
mention of the same words in Proverbs he says, "Ye must understand, ye
hearers, if ye do but attend, the Word declares that "this birth was begotten by
the Father before all creatures,and that which is begotten is numerically
another from him that begets."What can be more express for the
eternal generation of the Son of God, and that as a distinct person from his Father!

3. Irenaeus,a martyr, and bishop of Lyons in France,and a disciple of Polycarp.He wrote five books against the heresies of Valentinus
and the Gnostics, which are still extant; out of which many testimonies might be
produced confirming the doctrine of the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. I shall only
transcribe two or three passages relating to the divine Sonship and generation of Christ.
In one place he says,41 "Thou art not
increated and man, nor didst thou always co-exist with God, as his own word did,
but through his eminent goodness, hast now had a beginning of beings; thou sensibly
learnest from the word the dispositions of God who made thee; therefore observe the order
of thy knowledge, and lest, as ignorant of good things, thou shouldest, transcend God
himself" And again,42 "should any one say to us,
how is the Son brought forth by the Father? we reply to him, This bringing
forth or generation, etc. or by whatsoever name it is called; no man knows
his existing unspeakable generation; not Valentinus,not Marcion,not, Saturninus,nor Basilides,nor angels, nor
archangels, nor principalities, nor powers, only the Father who hath generated,and the Son that is generated;therefore seeing his generation is
ineffable, whoever attempts to declare such productions and generations (as the above
heretics did) are not in their right minds, promising to declare those things which cannot
be declared." And elsewhere, he says,43 "The Son,
the Word and Wisdom, was always present with him (God), and also the Spirit, by whom, and
in whom, he made all things freely and willingly; to whom he spake, saying, Let us make
man,etc." And a little after, "that the Word, that is, the Son, was
always with the Father, we have abundant proof;" and then mentions Proverbs 3:19 and
Proverbs 8:22, etc.

4. Athenagoras,who flourished at Athens,in
the times of Antoninus and Commodus,to which emperors he wrote an
apology for the Christians, in which he has these words,44
"Let not any think it ridiculous in me that I speak of God as having a Son, for not
as the poets fable, who make their Gods nothing better than men, do we think either of God
and the Father, or of the Son; but the Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and
efficacy for of him, and him are all things made,seeing the Father
and the Son are one; so that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, by
the union and power of the Spirit; the mind, and word of the Father is the Son of God; now
if any through the sublimity of your understanding would look further and inquire what the
Son means, I will tell him in a few words, that he is the first birth of the Father;not as made, for from the beginning, God being the eternal mind, he had the word in
himself (the

logov,or reason) being eternally rational,(that is, "never without his
word and wisdom) but as coming forth is the idea and energy of all things." For which
he produces as a proof Proverbs 8:22 and then proceeds, "Who therefore cannot wonder,
to hear us called atheists, who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and the holy
Spirit, shewing their power in unity and their distinction in order?" A little
farther,45 he strongly expresses the doctrine of
the Trinity in Unity; "We assert God and the Son his Word, and the holy Ghost, united
indeed according to power, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, for the Mind, Word and Wisdom,
is the Son of the Father, and the Spirit an emanation, or influence, as light from
fire."

5. Theophilus,bishop of Antioch,flourished
under the emperor Antoninus Verus:in a treatise of his46 he has these words concerning the Word and Son of God,
"God having his

logon endiaqeton,internal word within himself, begat him,when
he brought him forth with his wisdom before all things;this word he used in
working those things that were made by him, and he made all things by him.  The
prophets were not when the world was made; but the wisdom of God, which is in him, and the
holy word of God, was always present with him;" in proof of which he produces
Proverbs 8:27, And in another place,47 speaking of the
voice Adam heard, says, "What else is the voice, but the word of God who is
his Son? not as the poets and writers of fables, who say, the sons of the gods are born of
copulation; but as the truth declares, the internal Word being always in the heart of God,
before any thing was made, him he had as his counselor, being his mind and prudence, when
God would do what he counseled, he begat the Word, and having begotten the Word, the
first-born of every creature, he always conversed with his Word," for which he quotes
John 1:1-3.

6. Clemens of Alexandria,flourished under the
emperors Severus and Caracalla,towards the latter end of the second
century, he bears a plain testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, concluding one of his
treatises thus,48 "Let us give thanks,
praising the only Father and the Son, both teachers, with the holy Spirit, in which are
all things, in whom are all things, and by whom all are one,  to whom "be glory
now and for ever, Amen"He speaks49
of Christ the perfect word, as born of the perfect Father; and says50 of the Son of God, "that he never goes out of his
watchtower, who is not divided nor dissected, nor passes from place to place, but is
always every where, is contained no where, all mind, all paternal light, all eye; who sees
all things, hears all things knows all things by his power, searches powers, and to whom
the whole militia of angels and gods (magistrates) is subject.  This is the Son of
God, the Savior and Lord whom we speak of, and the divine prophecies shew." A little
after he speaks of him as, "begotten without beginning,that is,
eternally begotten, and who, before the foundation of the world, was the Fathers
counselor, that wisdom in whom the almighty God delighted; for Son is the power of God;
who before all things were made, was the most ancient word of the Father.  Every
operation of the Lord has a reference to the almighty; and the Son is, as I may say, a
certain energy of the Father." This ancient writer frequently attacks and refutes the
Carpocratians, Valentinians, and Gnostics, and other heretics of this and the preceding
age. I proceed,

III. To the third century, The heresies which sprung up in this age
respecting the Person, Sonship, and Deity of Christ, were those of Berullus,who
revived that of Artemon,and of the Noetians or Sabellians, sometimes called
Patripassians, and of the Samosatenians.

1st, Beryllus,bishop of Bostra in Arctia,who for some time behaved well in his office, as Jerom says,51 but at length fell into this notion, that Christ was not before
his incarnation; or as Eusebius52expresses
it, that our Lord and Savior did not subsist in his own substance before he sojourned
among men, and had no deity of his own residing in him, but his Fathers; but through
disputations he had with several bishops and particularly with Origen,he
was recovered from his error and restored to the truth.

2. The Noetians, so called from Noctus,and afterwards
Sabellians, from Sabellius,a disciple of the former; those held that
Father, Son, and Spirit, are one person under these different names. The foundation of
their heresy was laid by Simon Magus,as before observed. They were
sometimes called Praxeans and Hermogeniaus, from Praxeus and Hermogenes,the
first authors of it, who embraced the same notions in this period, and sometimes
Patripassians, because, in consequence of this principle, they held that the Father might
be said to suffer as the Son.53

3. The Samosatenians, so called from Paul of Samosate,bishop of Antioch,who revived the heresy of Artemo,that
Christ was a mere man. He held that Christ was no other than a common man; he refused to
own that he was the Son of God, come from heaven; he denied that the only begotten Son and
Word was God of God: he agreed with the Noetians and Sabellians, that there was lint one
person in the Godhead;54 of these notions he was
convicted, and for them condemned by the synod at Antioch.55

The writers of this age are but few, whose writings have been continued
and transmitted to us; but those we have, strongly opposed the errors now mentioned; the
chief are Tertullian, Origen,and Cyprian,besides in
some fragments of others.

1. Tertullian,He wrote against Praxeus,who
held the same notion that Noctus and Sabellius did, in which work he not
only expresses his firm belief of the Trinity in Unity, saying;56
"nevertheless the economy is preserved, which disposes Unity into Trinity, three, not
in state or nature, essence) but in degree (or person) not in substance but in form, not
in power but in species, of one substance, of one state, and of one power, because but one
God, from whom these degrees, forms and species are deputed, under the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And that he means three distinct persons, is
clear from what he afterwards says: "whatsoever therefore was the substance of the
Word, that I call a person, and to him I give the name of Son; and whilst I acknowledge a
Son, I defend a second from the Father." The distinction of the Father and Son from
each other, and the eternal generation of the one from the other, are fully expressed by
him "this rule as professed by me, is every where held; by which I testify, the
Father, Son, and Spirit are inseparable from each other; for Lo, I say, another is
the Father, and another is the Son, and another is the holy Spirit; not that the Son
is another from the Father, by diversity, but by distribution; not another by division,
but by distinction: another is he that generates,and another he that
is generated: a "Father must needs have Son that he may be a
Father, and the Son a Father that he may be a Son." And again, he explains the words
in Proverbs 8:22. (The Lord possessed me) of the generation of the Son; and
on the clause, when he prepared the heavens, I was with him,he
remarks, "thereby making himself equal to him, by proceeding from whom he became the
Son and first born, as being begotten before all things;and the only begotten,
as being alone begotten of God." On these words, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee,he observes57
to Praxeas,"If you would have me believe that he is both Father and
Son, shew me such a passage elsewhere, The Lord said unto himself, I am my
Son, this day have I begotten my self." And in another work58 of his, he has these words, speaking of the Word,
"this we learn is brought forth from God, and by being brought forth generated,
and therefore called the Son of God,and God, from the unity of substance;
so that what comes from God, is God, and the Son of God, and both one:" that
is, one God.

2. Origen.Notwithstanding his many errors, he is very
express for the doctrine of the Trinity, and the distinction of the Father and Son in it,
and of the eternal generation of the Son: he observes59
of the Seraphim, in Isaiah 6:3 that by saying, "Holy, holy, holy,they preserve the mystery of the Trinity; that it was not enough for them to cry holy
once nor twice, but they take up the perfect number of the Trinity, that they might
manifest the multitude of the holiness of God, which is the repeated community of the
trine holiness, the holiness of the Father, the holiness of the only begotten Son, and of
the holy Spirit." And elsewhere,60
allegorizing the show-bread, and the two tenth deals in one cake, he asks, how two tenths
become one lump? because, says he, "we do not separate the Son from the Father, nor
the Father from the Son (John 14:90, therefore each loaf is of two tenths, and set in two
positions, that is in two rows, for if there was one position, it would be confused, and
the Word would be mixed of the Father and the Son, but now indeed it is but one bread for
them is one will and one substance; but there are two positions; that is, two proprieties
of persons (or proper persons for we call him, the Father who is not the Son: and him the
Son who is not the Father:" Of the generation of the Son of God he thus speaks,61 "Jesus Christ himself, who is come, was begotten of
the Father before every creature was." And again,62
"it is abominable and unlawful to equal God the Father in the generation of his
only begotten Son,and in his substance, to any one, men or other kind of
animals: but there must needs be some exception, and something worthy of God, to which
there can be, no comparison, not in things only, but indeed not in thought: nor can it be
found by sense, nor can the human thought apprehend, how the unbegotten God is the Father
of the only begotten Son: for generation is eternal,as brightness is
generated from light, for he is not a Son by adoption of the Spirit extrinsically, but he
is a Son by nature."

3. Cyprian.Little is to be met with in his writings on
this subject. The following is the most remarkable and particular;63 "the voice of the Father was heard from heaven, This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased hear ye him;  that this
voice came from thy paternity, there is none that doubts; there is none who dares to
arrogate this word to himself; there is none among the heavenly troops who dare call the
Lord Jesus his Son. Certainly to thee only the Trinity is known, the Father only knows the
Son, and the Son knows the Father, neither is he known by any unless he reveals him; in,
the school of "divine teaching, the Father is he that teaches and, instructs,
"the Son who reveals and opens the secrets of God unto us, and the holy Spirit who
fits and furnishes us; from the Father we receive power, from the Son wisdom, and from the
holy Spirit innocence. The Father chooses, the Son loves, the Holy Spirit joins and
unites; from the Father is given us eternity, from the Son conformity to him his image,
and from the holy spirit integrity and liberty; in the Father we are, in the Son we live,
in the holy Spirit we are moved, and become proficients; eternal deity and temporal
humanity meet together, and by the tenor of both natures is made an unity, that it is
impossible that what is joined should be separated from one another." As for the
Exposition of the Creed, which stands among Cyprians works, and is
sometimes attributed to him, it was done by Ruffinus,and the testimonies
from thence will be produced in the proper place.

4. Gregory of Neocaesarea,sometimes called Thaumaturgus,the wonder-worker, lived in this century, to whom is ascribed64
the following confession of faith; "One God, the Father of the living Word, of
subsisting wisdom and power, and of the eternal character, perfect begetter of the perfect
One, Father of the only begotten Son: and God the Son, who is through all. The perfect
Trinity, which in glory eternity and kingdom, cannot be divided ? nor alienated. Not
therefore anything created or servile is in the Trinity, nor any thing super-induced, nor
first and last; nor did the Son ever want a Father, nor the Son a Spirit: but the Trinity
is always the same, immutable and invariable." And among his twelve articles of
faith, with an anathema annexed to them, this is one: "If any one says, another is
the Son who was before the world, and another who was an the last times, and does not
confess, that he who was before the world, and he who was in the last times, is the same,
as it is written, let him be anathema." The interpolation follows; how can it be
said, another is the Son of God before the world was, and another in the last days, when
the Lord says, before Abraham was, I am;and because I came forth
from the Father, and am come;and again, I go to my Father?"

5. Dionysius,bishop of Alexandria,was a
disciple of Origen:he wrote against the Sabellians,65 but none, of his writings are extant, only some fragments
preserved in other authors. And whereas Arius made use of some passages of his, and
improved them in favor of his own notions, Athanasius from him shows the contrary,
as where in one of his volumes he expressly says,66
that "there never was a time in which God was not a Father; and in the following
acknowledges, that Christ the Word, Wisdom and Power, always was; that he is the eternal
Son of the eternal Father; for if there is a Father, there must be a Son; and if there was
no Son, how could he be the Father of any? but there are both, and always were. The Son
alone always co-existed with the Father. God the Father always was; and the Father being
eternal, the Son also is eternal, and co-existed with him as brightness with light."
And in answer to another objection, made against him, that when he mentioned the Father,
he said nothing of the Son; and when he named the Son, said nothing of, the Father; it is
observed,67 that in another volume of his; he
says, that each of these names spoken of by me; are inseparable and indivisible from one
another; when I speak of the Father, and before I introduce the Son, I signify him in the
Father; when I introduce the Son; though I have not before spoken of the Father, he is
always to be understood in the Son."

6. The errors of Paulus Samosate were condemned by the synod at Antioch,towards the latter end of this century, by whom68
a formula or confession of faith was agreed to, in which are these words. "We profess
that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before ages,according
to the Spirit, and in the last days, born of a virgin, according to the flesh." The
word

omousiov, consubstantial,is used in their creed. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the
next, lived Lactantius,(for he lived under Dioclesian,and to
the times of Constantine) who asserts,69
that God, the maker of all things, begat "a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and
irreprehensible, whom he called the Son." He asks,70
"how hath he procreated? The divine works can neither be known nor declared by any;
nevertheless the scriptures teach, that the Son of God is the Word of God." Nothing
more is to be observed in this century. I pass on,

IV. To the fourth century, in which rose up the: Arians and Photinians,
and others, 1st,The Arians, so called from Arius,a presbyter
of the church at Alexandria,in the beginning of this century, who took
occasion from some words dropped in disputation by Alexander his bishop, to oppose
him, and start the heresy that goes under his name; and though the eternal Sonship of
Christ was virtually denied by preceding heretics, who affirmed that Christ did not exist
before Mary;in opposition to whom the orthodox affirmed, that he was begotten,
of the Father before all worlds;yet Arius was, the first, who pretended
to acknowledge the Trinity, that actually and in express words set. himself to oppose the
eternal Sonship of Christ by generation; and argued much in the same manner as those do,
who oppose it now: for being a man who had a good share of knowledge of the art of logic,
as the historian observes,71 he reasoned thus:
"If the Father begat the Son, he that is begotten, must have a beginning of his
existence, from whence it is manifest, that there was a time when the Son was not; and
therefore it necessarily follows, that he had his subsistence from things that are
not;" or was brought out of a state of non existence into a state of existence. He
understood generated in no other sense than of being created or made;and asserted, that he was created by God before time, and was the first creature, and
by which he made all others; in proof of which he urged Proverbs 8:22 taking the advantage
of the Greek version, which, instead of possessed me,reads created
me the beginning of his ways.His sentiments will more fully appear from his
own words in his epistles to Eusebius of Nicomedia,and to his own
bishop, Alexander of Alexandria;in his letter to the former, he
says,72 "Our sentiments and doctrines are,
that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten in any manner, nor out of any
subject matter, but that by will and counsel he subsisted before times and ages, perfect
God, the only begotten, immutable; and that before he was begotten or created, or decreed
or established, he was not, for e was not unbegotten; we are persecuted because we say, the
Son had a beginning,but God is without beginning: for this we are persecuted,
and because we say, that he is of things that did not exist (that is, out of nothing;) so
we say, that he is not a part of God, nor out of any subject-matter; and for this we are
persecuted." And in his letter to his bishop, he thus expresses himself,73 "We acknowledge one God, the only unbegotten; 
that this God begat the only begotten Son before time, by whom he made the world, and the
rest of things; that he begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that by his will
he subsisted, immutable and unalterable, a perfect creature, but as one of the creatures,
a birth, but as one of the births  We say, that he was created before times and
ages, by the will of God, and received his life and being from the Father; so that the
Father together appointed glories for him;  The Son without time was begotten by the
Father, and was created and established before the world was; he was not before he was
begotten, but without time was begotten before all things, and subsisted alone from the
alone Father; neither is eternal nor co-eternal, nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor
had he a being together with the Father." What he held is also manifest from his
creed,74 which he delivered in the following
words, "I believe in one eternal God, and in his Son whom he created before the
world, and as God he made the Son, and all the Son has, he has not (of himself,) he
receives from God, and therefore the Son is not equal to, and of the same dignity with the
Father, but comes short of the glory of God, as a workmanship; and in less than the power
of God. I believe in the holy Ghost, who is made by the Son."

The Arians were sometimes called Aetians, from Aetius,a
warm defender of the doctrine of Arius,and who stumbled at the same thing
that Arius did; for he could not understand, the historian says,75 how that which is begotten could be co-eternal with him
that begets; but when Arias dissembled and signed that form of doctrine in the
Nicene Synod, Aetius took the opportunity of breaking off from the Arians, and of
setting up a distinct sect, and himself at the head of them. These were after called
Eunomians, from Eunomius,a disciple of Aetius;he is said76 to add to and to exceed the blasphemy of Arias;he
with great boldness renewed the heresy of Aetius,who not only after Arius
asserted that the Son was created out of nothing, but that he was unlike to the
Father.77 Hence the followers of these men were
called Anomcoeans. There was another sect called Nativitarians, who were a sucker or
branch that sprung from the Eunomians, and refined upon them; these held that the Son had
his nativity of the Father, and the beginning of it from time; yet being willing to own:
that he was co-eternal with the Father, thought that he was with him before he was
begotten of him, that is, that he always was, but not always a Son, but that he began to
be a Son from the time he was begotten There is a near approach to the sentiments of these
in some of our days.

The Arians were also called Macedonians, from Macedonius a
violent persecutor of the orthodox, called Homoousians,"78
who believed that the Son is of the same substance with the Father; but this man
afterwards becoming bishop of Constantinople,refused to call him a
creature, whom the holy scripture calls the Son; and therefore the Arians rejected him,
and he became the author and patron of his own sect; he denied the Son was consubstantial
with the Father, but taught, that in all things he was like to him that begat him, and in
express words called the Spirit a creature,79
and the denial of the deity of the holy Spirit is the distinguishing tenet of his
followers.

2dly, The Photinians rose up much about the same time the Arians did,
for they are made mention of in the council of Nice,but their opinions
differ from the Arians. These were sometimes called Marcellians, from Marcellius of
Ancyra,whose disciple Photinus was, and from him named Photinians.
He was bishop of Syrmium;his notions were the same with Ebion,and
Paul of Samosate,that Christ was a mere man, and was only of Mary;he would not admit of the generation and existence of Christ before the world was.80 His followers were much the same with our modern Socinians, and
who are sometimes called by the same name. According to Thomas Aquinas,81the Photinians, and so the Cerinthians, Ebionites,
and Samosatenians before them, as they held that Christ was a mere man, and took his
beginning from Mary,so that he only obtained the honor of deity above
others by, the merit of his blessed life; that he was, like other men, the Son of God by
the Spirit of adoption, and by grace born of him, and by some likeness to God is in
Scripture called God, not by nature, but by some participation of divine goodness.

These heresies were condemned by the several councils and synods held
on account of them, and were refuted by various sound and valuable writers who lived in
this century: to produce all their testimonies would be endless: I shall only take notice
of a few, and particularly such as respect the Sonship of Christ.

1. The tenets of Arius were condemned by the council held at Nice
in Bythinia,consisting of three hundred and eighteen bishops, by whom
was composed the following creed or agreement of faith, as the historian calls it:82 "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the maker of
all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only
begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, out of the substance of the Father, God of God,
light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial (or of the same
essence) with the Father, by whom all things are made which are in heaven and in earth;
who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and became incarnate, and was made man
and suffered, and rose again the third day; ascended up into heaven, and will come to
judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the holy Spirit. As for those that say,
there was a time when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten was not, and that
he was made of what does not exist (out of nothing), and say, he was from another
substance, or essence, or created, or turned, or changed; the holy catholic and apostolic
church anathematises."

2. Athanasius was a famous champion for the doctrines of the
Trinity, the proper Sonship of Christ, and his eternal generation; to produce all the
testimonies from him that might be produced in proof of those doctrines, would be to
transcribe a great part of his writings; it may be sufficient to give his creed; not that
which is commonly called the Athanasian creed, which, whether penned by him is a doubt,
but that which stands in his works, and was delivered by him in a personal disputation
with Arius,and is as follows; which he calls an epitome of his faith.83 "I believe in one God the Father, the almighty, being
always God the Father; and I believe in God the Word, the only begotten Son of God, that
he co-existed with his own Father; that he is the equal Son of the Father, and that he is
the Son of God; of the same dignity; that he is always with his Father by his deity, and
that he contains all things in his essence; but the Son of God is not contained by any,
even as God his Father: and I believe in the Holy Ghost, that he is of the essence of the
Father, and that the Holy Spirit is co-eternal with the Father and with the Son. The Word,
I say, was made flesh." After this I would only just observe, that Athanasius having
said that the Son was without beginning and eternally begotten of the Father, farther
says,84 that he was begotten ineffably and
inconceivably; and elsewhere he says,85 "it
is superfluous or rather full of madness to call in question, and in an heretical manner
to ask, how can the Son be eternal? or, how can he be of the substance (or essence) of the
Father, and not be a part of him?" And a little farther, "it is unbecoming to
inquire how the Word is of God, or how he is the brightness of God, or how God begets, and
what is the mode of the generation of God: he must be a madman that will attempt such
things, since the thing is ineffable, and proper to the nature of God only, this is only
known to himself and his Son."

3. Alexander,bishop of Alexandria,whom Arius
opposed, and should have been mentioned first, in an epistle of his to Alexander,bishop of Constantinople,86acquaints
him with the opinion of Arius,that there was a time when the Son of God
wits not, and he that was not before, afterwards existed, and such was he made, when he
was made as every man is; and that the Son of God is out of things that are not, or out of
nothing; he observes to him, that what was his faith and the faith of others, was the
faith of the apostolic church: "We believe in one unbegotten Father,  and in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; not begotten out of that which is
not, but from the Father; that exists, not in a corporal manner by incision, or
defluctions of divisions, as seemed to Sabeilius and Valentinus,but in a
manner ineffable and inexplicable."

4. Epiphanius wrote a volume against all heresies, and attempts
a confutation of them: and with respect to the Arian heresy, he thus writes;87 "God existing incomprehensible, has begat him that is
incomprehensible, before all ages and times,and there is no space between
the Son and the Father, but as soon as you understand a Father, you understand a Son, and
as soon as you name a Father you shew a Son; the Son is understood by the Father, and the
Father is known by the Son; whence a Son, if he has not a Father? and whence a Father, it
he has not begat an only begotten Son? For when is it the Father cannot be called a
Father, or the Son, a Son? Though some think of a Father without a Son, who afterwards
comes to a proficiency and begets a Son, and so after the birth is called the Father of
that Son: the Father who is perfect, and never wants perfection, making a progress or
proficiency in the deity."

5. Hilary,bishop of Poictiers in France,wrote against the Arians, and says many things in opposition to their tenets,
concerning the Sonship of Christ, and his eternal generation; among others, he says88 "the unbegotten begot a Son of himself before all
time,not from any subjacent matter, for all things are by the Son, nor out of
nothing, for the Son is from him himself.  He begot the only begotten in an
incomprehensible and unspeakable manner, before all time and ages, of that which is
unbegotten, and so of the unbegotten, perfect and eternal Father, is the only begotten,
perfect and eternal Son."

6. Faustinus the presbyter, wrote a treatise against the Arians;
who observes, that they sometimes use the same words and phrases the orthodox do, but not
in the same sense; they speak of God the Father and of God the Son, but when they speak of
the Father, it is not of one who truly begets, and when they speak of the Son, it is of
him as a Son by adoption, not by nature; and when they speak of him as a Son begotten
before the world was, they attribute a beginning to him, and that there was a time when he
was not; and so they assert him to he of things not existent, that is, of nothing. He
asks, "How is he truly a Father, who, according to them, does not beget (truly)? and
how is Christ truly a Son, whom they deny to be generated of him?" And again,
"How is he the only begotten of the Father, since he cannot be the only begotten,
other Sons existing by adoption? but if he is truly the only begotten by the Father,
therefore because he only is truly generated of the Father." And elsewhere,89 "They say God made himself a Son; if he made him out of
nothing, then is he a creature, and not a Son. What is he that you call a Son, whom you
confirm to be a creature, since you say he is made out of nothing? therefore you cannot
call him both a Son and a creature; for a Son is from birth, a creature from being
made." And again,90 "In this alone the
Father differs from the Son, that the one is a Father, the other a Son; that is the one
begets and the other is begotten; yet not because he is begotten has he any thing less
than what is in God the Father" (Heb.1:3). Once more91
"God alone is properly a true Father, who is a Father without beginning and end, for
he did not sometime begin: he is a Father, but he was always a Father, having always a Son
begotten of him, as he is always the true God, continuing without beginning and end."

7. Gregory,bishop of Nazianzum,gives many
testimonies to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Sonship and generation of Christ,
against the Arians and Eunomians: among which are the following: "We ought, says he,92 to acknowledge one God the Father, without beginning and
unbegotten; and one Son, begotten of the Father; and one Spirit, having subsistence from
God, yielding to the Father, because he is unbegotten, and to the Son, because he is
begotten; otherwise of the same nature, dignity, honor and glory." And elsewhere he
says,93 "If you ask me, I will answer you
again, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When did the Spirit
proceed? When the Son did not proceed, but was begotten before time, and beyond
expression.  How can it be proved, that they (the Son and Spirit) are, co-eternal
with the Father? From hence, because they are of him, and not after him, for what is
without beginning is eternal." And then he goes on to answer the several objections
made to the generation of the Son by the Eunomians. Again he says,94 "Believe the Son of God, the word that was before
all ages begotten of the Father before time, and in an incorporeal manner; the same in
the last clays made the Son of man for thy sake, coming forth from the virgin Mary in
an unspeakable manner." And elsewhere he says,95
"Do you hear of generation? do not curiously inquire how it is. Do you hear that the
holy Spirit proceeds from the Father? do not be anxiously solicitous how it is: for if you
curiously search into the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, I shall
curiously inquire into the temperament of the soul and body, how thou art dust, and yet
the image of God? How the mind remains in thee, and begets a word in another mind?"

8. Basil,called the great archbishop of Caesarea
Cappadocia,wrote a treatise against Eunomius,in which he says,96 "As there is one God the Father always remaining the
Father, and who is for ever what he is; so there is one Son, born by an eternal
generation, who is the true Son of God, who always is what he is, God the Word and Lord;
and one holy Spirit, truly the holy Spirit." Again,97
"Why therefore, O incredulous man, who dost not believe that God has an own Son, dost
thou inquire how God begets? if truly thou askest of God how and where also, as in a place
and when as in time; which, if absurd to ask such things concerning God, it will be more
abominable not to believe." And a little after he says,98
"If God made all out of nothing by his will, without labor, and that is not
incredible to us; it will certainly be more credible to all, that it; became God to beget
an own Son of himself, in the divine nature, without passion, of equal honor, and of equal
glory, a counselor of the same seat, a co-operator consubstantial with God the Father; not
of a divers substance, nor alien from his sole deity; for if he is not so, neither is he
adorable, for it is written thou shall not worship a strange God."

9. Gregory,bishop of Nyssa,the brother of
Basil,wrote against Eunomius,in which we have this passage.99 "He (Eunomius) does say, that he (the Son) was truly
begotten before the world. Let him say of whom he was begotten: he must say of the Father
entirely, if he is not ashamed of the truth; but from the eternal Father there is no
separating the eternity of the Son; the word Father "contains a Son."

10. Ambrose,bishop of Milan,after having
said many things in opposition to Arius, Sabellius, Phontius,and
Eunomius,observes, that "when you speak of a Father, you also design
his Son, for no man is a father to himself; and when you name a son, you confess his
father, for no man is a son to himself; therefore neither the son can lie without the
father, nor the father without the son; therefore always a father and always a son."
He has also these words:100 "You ask me,
how he can be a son if he has not a prior father? I ask of you also, when or how you think
the Son is generated? for to me it is impossible to know the secret of generation; the
mind fails, the voice is silent; and not mine only, but that of the angels; it is above
angels, above powers, above cherubim, above seraphim, and above all understanding, if the
peace of Christ is above all understanding (Phil, 4:7), must not such a generation be
above all understanding?" And in another place,101
"God the Father begat the Word co-eternal with himself and co-omnipotent, with
whom he produced the holy Spirit; hence we believe that the substance of the Son and of
the holy Spirit existed before any creature, out of all time; that the Father is the
begetter, the Son is begotten, and the holy Spirit the holiness and the Spirit of the
begetter and the begotten."

11. Jerom the presbyter, and a noted writer in this century,
speaking of the Arians says,102 "Let them
understand, that they glory in vain of the testimony in which Wisdom speaks of being
created in the beginning of the ways of God, and begotten and established; for it,
according to them, he was created, he could not be begotten or born: if begotten or born,
how could he be established and created?" And a little after he says "God, the
"Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a Father according to substance (or essence,)
and the only begotten is not a Son. by adoption, but by nature; whatsoever we say of the
Father and the Son, this we know is said of the holy Spirit." Here the creed of Damasus
might be taken notice of, in which he says, "God has begot a Son, not by will nor
by necessity, but by nature;" and in the explanation of it, it is said, "Not
because we say the Son is begotten of the Father by a divine and ineffable generation, do
we ascribe any time to him, for neither the Father nor the Son began to be at any time;
nor do we any otherwise confess an eternal Father, but we also confess a co-eternal
Son." Also Ruffinuss exposition of the apostles creed, which
stands among Jeroms works, "when you hear of a Father, understand
the Father of a Son, the image of his substance; but how God begat a Son do not discuss,
nor curiously intrude into the depth of this secret.103

12. The errors of the Photinians were not only confuted by the several
above writers, but Photinus himself was condemned by the synod at Syrmium,of which place he had been bishop; and in the formula of faith agreed on therein,
among others, are the following articles,104
"We believe in one God the Father almighty, the creator and maker of all things;
 and in his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the
Father before all ages;  and in the holy Spirit:  and as to those
that say, that the Son is of things that are not, (or of nothing) or of another substance,
and not of God; and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic
church reckons them as aliens.  If any one dare to say, that the unbegotten or a
part of him was born of Mary,let him be anathema: and if any one say that
he is the Son of Mary by prescience, and not begotten of the Father before the
world, and was with God by whom all things are made, let him be anathema.  If any
one says, that Christ Jesus was not the Son of God before the world was, and ministered to
the Father at the creation of all things, but only from the time he was born of Mary was
called Son and Christ, and then received the beginning of deity, let him be anathema, as a
Samosatenian."

13. The formulas, creeds, and confessions of faith, made by different
persons, and at different places, besides the Nicene creed, and even some that differed in
other things from that and from one another, yet all agreed in inserting the clause
respecting their faith in Christ, the only begotten Son, as begotten of the father
before all ages,or the world was;as at Antioch,
Syrmium, Ariminum, Selucia, and Constantinople.105

14. Before the Nicene creed was made, or any of the above creeds, this
was an article of faith with the orthodox Christians, that Christ was the eternal begotten
Son of God. From the Writings of Cyril,bishop of Jerusalem,who
lived in the fourth century, may be collected a symbol or creed containing the faith of
the church, and in which this article is fully expressed;106
that Christ "is the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all
worlds, the true God by whom all things are made;" and which article he strongly
asserts and defends; and the creed which he explains, is thought to be the107 same which the first and ancient church always
professed, and from the beginning; and perhaps is what Eusebius108refers unto, who was bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine,when he declared his faith in the council at Nice;our
formula, says he, which was read in the presence of our emperor (Constantine) most
dear to God, is as we received it from the bishops that were before us;and
as when catechized and received the laver (that is, were baptized,) and as we learnt from
the divine writings, and is in this manner, "We believe in one God the Father
Almighty,  and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the only begotten Son, the
first-born of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds,by
whom all things are made, etc." Nor indeed was the word

omoousiov, consubstantial,which
expresses the Sons being of the same substance, nature and essence with the Father,
a new word,109 devised in the council of
Nice;for it was in use before,110
as Athanasius has proved from the same Eusebius."The bishops,
he says, (that is, those assembled at Nice) did not invent these words of
themselves, but having a testimony from the Fathers, so they wrote; for the ancient
bishops near a hundred and thirty years before, both in the great city of Rome,and
in our city (Alexandria) reproved those that said that the Son was a creature, and
not consubstantial with the Father;" and this Eusebius who was bishop
of Caesarea,knew, who first gave into the Arian heresy, but afterwards
subscribed to the synod at Nice;for being confirmed, he wrote to his own
people thus,111 "We find, says he, some
sayings of the ancient and famous bishops and writers, who use the word consubstantial in
treating of the deity of the Father and of the Son." And certain it is, that it is
used by Gregory of Neocaesarea,112 who
lived before the council of Nice,and by the synod at Antioch in
their creed,113 held A. D. 277.

V. In the fifth century Arianism continued and prospered, having many
abettors, as well as many who opposed it: other heresies also arose, and some in
opposition to the Sonship of Christ.

1st. Felicianus,the Arian, argued against it thus,
"If Christ was born of a virgin, how can he be said to be co-eternal with God the
Father?" To whom Austin replied, "The Son of God entered into the womb of
the virgin, that he might be again born, who had been already begotten before, he received
the whole man (or whole humanity) who had had already perfect deity from the Father, not
unlike was he to the begetter, when being everlasting he was begotten from eternity, nor
unlike to men when born of his mother."

2dly, Faustus,the Manichee, asserted, that according to
the evangelists, Christ was not the Son of God, only the Son of David,until
he was thirty years of age, and was baptized: to which Austin replied, "The
catholic and apostolic faith is, that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is the Son of God
according to Deity, and the Son of David,according to the flesh: which we
so prove from the evangelic and apostolic writings, as that no man can contradict our
proofs, unless he contradicts limit express words."114

3dly,The Priscillianists asserted that Christ is called the
only begotten Son of God, because he only was born of a virgin; to which Leo Magnus makes
answer, "Let them take which they will, their tenets tend to great impiety, whether
they mean, that the Lord Christ had his beginning from his mother, or deny him to be the
only begotten of God the Father; since he was born of his mother, who was God the Word,
and none is begotten of the Father but the Word."115

The writers in this century are many, who have plainly and strongly
asserted the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ: as Augustine, Chrysostom,
Proclus archbishop of Constantinople, Leo Magnus, Theodoret,
Cyril of Alexandria,116 Paulinus,
Victor, Maximus Taurinensis,etc. it may be abundantly sufficient only to
mention the following formulas, or confessions of faith.

1. Of Augustine,bishop of Hippo,or of Sennadius,presbyter of Marseilles in France,to whom it is sometimes ascribed:
"We believe there is one God, the Father, Son, and holy Spirit; the Father because he
has a Son, the Son because he has a Father; the holy Spirit because he is from the Father
and the Son (proceeding and co-eternal with the Father and the Son,)  the eternal
Father, because he has an eternal Son, of whom he is the eternal Father; the eternal Son,
because he is co-eternal with the Father and the holy Spirit; the eternal holy Spirit,
because he is co-eternal with the Father and the Son."117

2. Of Flavianus,bishop of Constantinople,which
he delivered in conc. Constantinop.A. D. 448 approved of by the synod at Chalcedon,A. D. 451. "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and
perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body; begotten indeed of the Father,without beginning and before the world,according to deity, but in the
end, in the last days, the same was born of the virgin Mary for our salvation,
according to humanity; consubstantial with the Father, according to deity, consubstantial
with his mother according to "humanity; for of two natures we confess that Christ is
after the incarnation in one subsistence, in one person. we confess one Christ, one Son,
one Lord."118

3. Of the council at Chalcedon,consisting of six hundred
and thirty Fathers; "Following the holy fathers, say they, we all harmoniously teach
and confess our Lord Jesus Christ: that he is perfect in deity and perfect in humanity,
truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father
according to the deity, and co-essential with us according to the humanity, in all things
like unto us, excepting sin, but begotten of the Father before the world,according to the deity: and in the last days, for us and our salvation, was of the
virgin Mary,the mother of our Lord, according to the humanity,etc."119

VI. In the sixth century were a sort of heretics called Bo-o-nosians,who held that Christ was not the proper but adoptive Son; against whom dustinian bishop
of Valae in Spain wrote;120 and
Arianism spread and prevailed under the Gothic kings in several parts. Fulgentius speaks
of the tenets of the Arians in this time, that the Word or Son of God was not of the same
substance with the Father.121 This author wrote
an answer to ten objections of theirs: to the first, concerning diversity of words and
names used, he replies, "When Father and Son are named, in these two names a
diversity of words is acknowledged, but neither by those two different words the nature of
both is signified, for the diversity of those names does not divide the natures, but shows
the truth of the generation, as from one true Father, we know that one true Son
exists." To the second objection, concerning the ineffability of generation, he
observes, "because the generation of the Son is unspeakable, it is not unknowable,
nor does it follow, because it cannot be declared, that it cannot be known."122

Chilpericus,king of the Franks,endeavored to
revive the Sabellian heresy, but was opposed by Gregory Furnensis:123 besides Fulgentius and Gregory,there were
others in this age who asserted and defended the eternal generation and Son-ship of
Christ, as Fortunatus, Cassiodorus, Gregorius Magnus,and
others;124 and even by a synod consisting of
Gothic bishops,125 in number sixty three. In
the same century the famous Boetius declares his faith in God the Father, in God
the Son, and in God the holy Ghost; that the Father has a Son begotten of his substance,
and co-eternal with him, whose generation no human mind call conceive of.126

VII. In the seventh century, towards the beginning of it, rose up that
vile impostor Mahomet,as bitter an enemy to the true, proper and eternal
Sonship of Christ, as ever was, for which he gave the following brutish and stupid
reasons; "because God did not need a Son, because if he had a Son, they might not
agree, and so the government of the world be disturbed."127
Reasons which require no answer, Not to take notice of the several councils at Toletum,held in this century, in which the article of Christs eternal Son-ship was
asserted and maintained, I would observe what is said in a Roman synod, consisting of a hundred
and twenty five bishops, in which Agatho the Roman pontiff presided; "We
believe, say they, in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible; and in his only begotten Son, who was begotten of him before
all worlds."128

VIII. In the eighth century, the notion that Christ, though the true,
proper, and natural Son of God according to the divine nature, yet according to the human
nature was only the Son of God by adoption and grace, an adoptive Son, was propagated by Elipandus
and Felix,Spanish bishops; but condemned by the council at Frankfort,called by Charles the Great;129 and
the eternal Sonship and generation of Christ was asserted and maintained by Damascene,
Bede, Albinus,and others.130

IX. In the ninth, tenth and eleventh
centuries, the controversies were chiefly about Image-worship, Transubstantiation, etc.
yet in these and the following centuries, we have testimonies from various writers to the
truth of Christs proper and eternal Sonship by generation; it would be too numerous
to produce them all; it will be sufficient to say, it was not opposed by any, but plainly
and strongly affirmed by Rabanus, Macerus,and Haymo in
century 9 by Theophilact,in century 10 by Anselm,in century
11 by Peter Lombard and Bernard,in century 12 by Thomas Aquinas and
Albertus Magnus,in century 13, but in these and the following centuries,
till the Reformation, Satan had other work to do than to stir up men to oppose the
Trinity, or any of the divine persons in it, having enough to do to support the hierarchy
of Rome,and the peculiar tenets of Popery, against the witnesses who rose
up at different times to oppose them, and to endeavor to carry the pride and tyranny of
the bishop of Rome to the highest pitch possible.

X. When the Reformation began in the
sixteenth century, and spread throughout many nations in Europe,great
evangelical light broke forth among the Reformers; and Satan fearing his kingdom would
greatly suffer hereby, went to his old game again, which he had played with so much
success in the first ages of Christianity, namely, to stir up an opposition to the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the person of Christ; which was first begun by Servetus in
Helvetia,who afterwards came to Geneva and there ended his life.131Blandrata,infected with his principles, went
into Poland,and there artfully spread his poison in the reformed churches,
assisted by others, and which at length issued in a division in those churches; when Faustus
Socinus,who had imbibed some bad notions from the papers of his uncle Laelius
about the Trinity, came into Poland,and joined the Antitrinitarians
there, and strengthened their cause, and where the notions of him and his followers took
root and flourished much: and from thence bays been transplanted into other countries,
Those men, who were men of keen parts and abilities, saw clearly that could they demolish
the article of Christs Son-ship by eternal generation, it would be all over with the
doctrine of the Trinity; and therefore set themselves with all their might against it.132Socinus himself says of it,133 not only that it is error and a mere human invention,
and which he represents as if it was held to be more animantium;but that it
is most absurd, most unworthy of God, and contrary to his absolute perfection and
unchangeable eternity;134 and asserts, that
Christ is not called the only begotten Son of God, because generated of the substance of
God; and that there is no other, nor ever existed any other only begotten Son of God,
besides that man, Jesus of Nazareth:and expressly says, it clearly appears,
that the human nature of Christ is the person of the Son of God; and elsewhere135 makes the same objection to Sonship by generation as Mahomet
did, for he says, "Those who accommodate the Word brought forth in
Proverbs 8:24 to the Son, are not according to the judgment of the Homoousians, to be
reckoned very distant from the blasphemy of the Turks, who when they hear that the
Christians say, God has a Son, ask, Who is his wife?" And in this article concerning
the Sonship of Christ, and also with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, the
Remonstrants,136 in the seventeenth century and
onwards, seem to agree with them; but the contrary has been maintained by all sound
divines and evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the present time, as appears by
their writings and harmony of confessions: so that upon the whole it is clear, that the
church of God has been in the possession of this doctrine of the eternal generation and
Sonship of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity to the present age, almost eighteen
hundred years;nor has there been any one man who professed to hold the
doctrine of the Trinity, or of the three distinct divine persons in the unity of the
divine essence, that ever opposed it, till the latter end of the seventeenth century:
if any such person in this course of time can be named, let him be named: none but the
followers of Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Carpocrates,the
Gnosticks, etc. in the two first centuries, and then by the Sabellians, Samosatenians,
Arians, Photinians, Mahometans, Socinians, and more lately by the Remonstrants, such as
are Antitrinitarians. The only two persons I have met with who have professed to hold the
doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been commonly received, that have publicly expressed
their doubts or dissatisfaction about the phrase eternal generation,I mean
such as are of any note or character, for as for the trifling tribe of ignorant writers
and scribblers, who know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm, I make no account of
them; I say, I have met with only two of this sort. The one is Roell,a
Dutch Professor at Franeker,who lived at the latter end of the last
century; this man professed to believe that there are three distinct divine persons, the
Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these three are one; that the second person in the
Trinity was begotten by the Father from all eternity, and that this is the first and chief
reason that he is called a Son; nor did he object to the use of the phrase eternal
generation,nor did he disuse it, but explained it to another sense than that
in which it was commonly taken, that is, that it only signified the co-existence of the
second person with the first, and communion of nature with him. But as the same may be
said of the first and third persons, the phrase of generation so understood might be said
of them as well as of the second; he therefore was obliged to have recourse to the economy
of salvation, and the manifestation of the three persons in it.137
On the whole, he was opposed by the very learned Vitringa,138
and his opinion was proscribed and condemned by almost all the synods of the Dutch
churches, and he was forbid by the authority of his supreme magistrate to propagate it;
and most of the synods have decreed, that the candidates for the ministry shall be
examined about this opinion, before they are admitted into the ministry.139 The other person, who has objected to the eternal generation
of the Son of God, is Dr. Thomas Ridgeley,Professor of Divinity in London,towards the beginning of the present century:140
who strongly asserts, and contends for the doctrine of a Trinity of divine distinct
persons in the Godhead, and vet strangely adopts the Socinian notion or Sonship by office,
and makes the eternal Sonship of Christ to be what he calls his mediatorial Sonship. There
is indeed a third person of great flame among us, Dr. Isaac Watts,who has
expressed his dissatisfaction with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of
God, but then he is not to be reckoned a Trinitarian, being so manifestly in the Sabellian
scheme, as appears by his Dissertations published in 1725. Insomuch that the
celebrated Fred. Adolphus Lampe, who published his Theological
Disputations concerning the holy Spirit, two or three years after, spares not to
reckon him among the grosset Sabellians: his words are,141
"Nuperius novum systema Socinianum de Trinitate Angtiee J. WATS edidit, additis
quibusdam dissertationibus eam illustrantibus, quaram quinta ex professo de spiritu S.
agit. Existimat quidem sect. o. p. 126. eatenus se a Socino, Schlictingio, Crellio esse
distinguatum, quod virituem in Deo non accidentalem, sed essentialem, seu substantialem
pro spiritu S. habeat: hoc tamen ita facit, ut non censeat hanc notionem constanter ubique
obtinere: nam saepius "cum crassioribus Sabellianis spiritum S. esse Deum psum, p.
130. s. 49. defendit."

Upon the whole, setting aside the said
persons, the testimonies for and against the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ
stand thus:

For Eternal Generation, etc.

Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch,Clemens of Alexandria,Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory of Neoccesaria,Dionysius of Alexandria,the three hundred and eighteen Nicene Fathers; Athanasius, Alexander bishop of Alexandria,Epiphanius, Hilary, Faustinus, Gregory of Nazianzum,Basil, Gregory of Nyssa,Ambrose, Jerom, Ruffinus, Cyril of Jerusalem,besides the many
hundreds of bishops and presbyters assembled at different times and in different
places, as, at Syrmium, Antioch, Arminum, Seleucia,and
Constantinople,and elsewhere;

Against It,

Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, and
their respective followers; Carpocrates and the Gnostick, Valentinus, Theodotus the
currier, Artemon, and others their associates; Beryllus of Bostra,Praxeus,
Hermogenes, Noctius and Sabellius, the Samosatenians, Arians, Aetians, Eunomians and
Photinians, the Priscillianists and Bonotians; Mahomet and his followers; the Socinians
and Remonstrants; and all Anti-trinitarians; Augustine, Chrysostom, Leo Magnus, Theodoret,
Cyril of Alexandria,Paulinus, Flavianus, Victor, Maximus Tauriensis, six
hundred and thirty fathers in the council at Chalcedon;Fulgentius,
Gregory Turnasis, Fortunatus, Cassioclorus, Gregorius Magaus, the many bishops in
the several councils at Toletum,the Roman synod of a hundred and
twenty-five under Agatho, Damascene, Beda, Albinus, and the fathers in the council of Francford,with many others in later times, and all the sound divines and evangelic churches
since the reformation.

Now since it appears that all the sound
and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of
Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in
other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles,
have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an
opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has
always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and
is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian
religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans,
Jews and Mahometans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of
them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion.